Skip to main content
7:00 pm
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
7:03 pm
7:04 pm
7:05 pm
7:06 pm
7:07 pm
7:08 pm
7:09 pm
7:10 pm
7:11 pm
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
. >> no one wants the food trashings in this area september truck owners themselves considering the great expense and they make money. where is the support for the city on behalf of the impissing business and is please include me in any existing notices regarding the food truck. your time sup sir. >> i believe this is first and i challenge you to say --.
7:14 pm
>> question for you, the exchange is how far away from the location? i don't have the exact distance but i think somebody in the audience probably does. >> and they never got notice? that is my understanding, yes, in writing. >> next speaker. thank you. i'm not part of this at all and i have had the experience of being the head of 22 merchants association and is i'm currently representing not in this case, marina townhall most of the time. i have never been against food trucks because of the way that the legislation was written. in legislation the intent of the food truck legislation was to supply types of food not seived in certain
7:15 pm
areas of san francisco. this case, is now feasiblance of the law and these are not competing business and is our lively hoods are at risk and the applications for food cuts can cause injury to the other existing buildings -- and businesses. the license of the law the parking injury to the other businesses because of loss of foot you traffic. these applications do not address the a d a. . the health department is not here the -- that they took is second floor. according to the america's disability act in 2012, there must be adequate accessible for workers as well as for customer, food trucks are
7:16 pm
not ex-swrempt from federal legislation. the federal code superceeds allstate and city codes the stated code does not exempt workers with disability ignoring federal law it's a case that is going to happen all over the city, i feel sorry for you but we have to come one a conclusion of what the intent of the legislation was and the intent was not to take away existing businesses for food trucks and i think this case is sort-of a presidential case for the city and you should really consider what you are doing for the future and possibly for future lawsuits, this is now fezzance of the law as much as i can say. >> thank you. >> thank you is there any other public comment? seeing none the commissioners the matter is submitted.
7:17 pm
>> ms., khan last question. mr. khan, yeah. do you have the documentation on the radius map and mailing list for both sites?. >> not currently on this however, hoirve you do know for a fact that the one of the requirement is the free-foot moving and knees are done by radio services and other company that is provides affidavit of the crazy of the assertion. the service has been made by two people that notice was not received. normally, if we are looking at a neighborhood issue, you know the building
7:18 pm
department and the planning department, you know using usually in their filed files have the radius maps and the mailing list. >> well i don't have that. >> bauer but you are given a set aren't you? who does the mail, what happens is the mailing information is provided to us from the applicant via the affidavit saying this is rue and accurate and we use that information as part of the area that is to be notified all of the individuals to be notified. >> may i have that answer back? what happens is the applicant as part of the application provides us with the mailing labels and the postage very similar to the planning department and their notification requirement affidavit we use that information as part of the department's notice. >> okay. sorry to interrupt you i wanted to make sure i heard that.
7:19 pm
>> no it's the same we are getting to the same point. thank you. . >> commissioners i think we need to verify that the notice was appropriate and that it was accurate and that the comments that were made and the information in the brief was not new information. even though i voted against this particular case, most of the stuff that was presented both orally and in writing was not new information. and did not in my opinion manifest justice. they issued a proper due process on the mailing however which, is an item that i think we need to clear up. i voted to uphold the
7:20 pm
department's originallishance of this and i think, and typically, i'm not inclient on a rehearing unless there is some showing of new information and i think that we have enough here to work with for purposes of a rehearing on the notice based on testimony that was presented under oath the other concern i have is the representation that there was no objection from starbucks yet, i'm hearing from testimony that an objection that came in was not considered and i do not -- i think that also goes to the need for a rehearing. that is where i would be leaning.. >> well i'm inclient to a rehearing as well but i guess i would like to say to a number of the people here is that we are going to hear this matter based
7:21 pm
on a current law and the current ordinance that governors mobile food facility and is if that is not something that is not well done in your mind this is not the body that is going to be able to change it and i want to encourage all of you who feel that way to start weeking with your legislatures because those are the bun onces outly that are going to equity of the changes it's not glowing to come from here because we can only take this from a case by case basis and to conform with the current law. >> that was very well stated and something that i wanted to raise as well these issues come up regularly and are presented in a very articulate manner and i appreciate the testimony on it but this is not the body that is going to address what the legislatures intent the and those are policy questions and they are not for this board to rule on. >> i make a motion to have this reheard.
7:22 pm
this married reheard. >> and on what date president? what would you suck sog? >> like the prior case, this is at case where the permit holder is permit is suggestion spend and had this is being considered by the board and perhaps a an earlier date. january 16th. >> i think january 16th this is the ninth is a full calendar. yes.. >> okay so the motion is to grant the rehearing request and rehear it's matter on january 16th. on that motion, vice president phoning. aye. commissioner retar do. eye honorra and that motion is grand the board's decision is no longer in play and the matter will be reheard on january 16th. i would like to take a
7:23 pm
short break, okay? . >> 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we are returning to our calendar item four d was withdrawn item five was to january 30th and we are actually going to take the next item out of order item number seven appeal #1-one 01 and before i begin there is an alternator in the room and i want to make sure that he is interpreting this matter. okay you can sit down
7:24 pm
for the moment. okay so this is number 1201 - one and diagnosis doing business as the he r c owe o health club inc.,, 630 bush street number 601 and this is in regards to a message establishment permit and my understanding is that the appellate is interesting in requesting a continuance of the this matter and with the president's subsequent to address the board about the continuance. >> yeah and who's the interpreter? okay and i do not hear any -- are you doing the translation services so that -- i'm not sure but i'm here to translate for her. >> translating our is there a need or -- right now to convey what is has been stated
7:25 pm
already?. >> i'm here for the appellate and mr. president and commissioner and is to answer your question directly, she has no testimony to often as far as the continuance but you may have testimony in the body in the continuance which, is not granted and i do -- so interpretive services are not necessary to community what we are saying right now about her case. the question is do you needer her to have this proceeding interpreted or only her testimony? >> so she understand what we are saying. i would think that she would want to hear everything interpreted. >> so if you could please interpret the matter to her?
7:26 pm
i just wanted to make sure that we are using our services. >> so you have two minutes and then you will have a few minutes. thank you very much at the last hearing, i wish i had a cup of coffee we talked so much about coffee but i want to talk about this case i was retained last night and promptly this morning i faxed a formal sub staigs of attorney and requested the date back with the attorney and board at 9:00 o'clock as the director could a test to and i have no previous eye affiliation on the case he is a gentlemen and a colleague but also a competitor of mine we do not share cases so far and there is some illusion here that there is some gang playings and there is not i'm could go. . could go to you tonight to ask for a continuance just to the
7:27 pm
neck available hearing and it's extensively brief i have treed to read all of the briefs and spent all day working ton and there is also the question and we discovered the evidence which appear and had one thing even though it was therapily brief but there is no mention of a very seminal hearing in the health code section 1921 b and i don't know if this will work or not. >> is this meant to be your question, this is jurisdictional and i was asked to produce new evidence. >> i would like to see it please put it up -- so it faces you the way that you would read it. read that very carefully the health code requires -- it's not permissive it's mandatory 20 days notice from the day of the
7:28 pm
incident to the day of getting written up to the day of the hearing in this case, they only gave the appellate 12 days. there was a rush to judgment on this and now i have been trying to get this continuance there seems to be -- i have heard that the city attorney or some allegation or that -- this is a bad place or we have to close it down and there is a sense of urgency i would submit if it was a sense of urgency that the health department would have gone with subsections c which they would have the right do for a semi proceeding. now, on that point. i know there was a companion case that was going to be heard tonight and i understand it's been continued to february 20th is that correct? and it would be appropriate to continue this case, if the opportunity produced more evidence on this and i would need that extra
7:29 pm
time to submit one brief there are some errors here and i would like to correct them and not all of the attorneys swallow and there are some things that can be corrected easy lie by a breech and just go to the next hearing when the companion case is also scheduled to be held and i do want to do it pro confessionally just of hemmed overwhelmed doing it all in one day. >> there was another case a massage parlor operator and petitioner and the petitioner has a different attorney and the parties have mutually agreed to continue that case to a later date because they are close to settling and they need additional time to file the settlement the case is on your docke

December 13, 2012 7:00pm-7:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Petitioner 2, San Francisco 2, Retar 1, Hoirve 1, Mr. Khan 1, Bauer 1, Marina Townhall 1, Starbucks 1, Superceeds Allstate 1, Khan 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color